Advocates:
['ABHISHEK VERMA', '', 'Mehboob Rahi', 'G A', 'RAJAT MITTAL']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1799 of 2021

Arun Kumar

…........ Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..... Respondents

Present : Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge

in

this

petition

is

made

to

summoning order dated 15.02.2018 as well as the entire

proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1921 of 2020, State vs.

Arun Kumar under Section 420 of IPC, pending in the

court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District

Dehradun ( for short “the case”).

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that he restricts his argument to

the extent that the court below may be directed to decide

2

the bail application of the petitioner, in view of the

directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation and another, 2021 SCC On line SC 922.

4.

In the instant case, FIR has been lodged by

respondent no.2. According to the FIR, the petitioner

agreed to sell a land to the private respondent, which had

already been pledged with the Bank. He thereby duped

the private respondent/the informant. It is this matter, in

which, after investigation, charge sheet has been

submitted against the petitioner. That is how, cognizance

has been taken in the matter.

5.

In this matter, the FIR discloses commission of

cognizable offence. After investigation, the allegations

have been found to be true. There appears to be no

reason to make any interference in the proceedings. Even

otherwise, nothing has been argued on merits.

6.

In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for

deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the

cases have been divided under four categories. The

3

Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts

and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid

guidelines, while considering the bail application. This

Court has no doubt, that as and when, the petitioner

approaches the trial court for bail, the trial court shall

definitely follow the directions given in the case of

Satendra Kumar Antil (supra). No separate directions of

this Court are required for that purpose.

7.

With the above observations, the petition

stands disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

22.03.2022

Nahid